Preventive detention order quashed for non-application of mind after the grounds were copied almost verbatim from the sponsoring proposal.

Preventive detention was invalid where the detaining authority had merely reproduced the sponsoring authority's proposal with only cosmetic changes, because subjective satisfaction must be based on grounds independently formulated after application of mind. The comparison showed the grounds of detention were substantially verbatim to the proposal, and the authority's denial was vague and unconvincing. That mechanical adoption defeated the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention, so the detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind and could not be sustained; the detenu was directed to be released.

---

---

Issues: Whether the preventive detention order was vitiated because the detaining authority had merely bodily lifted the sponsoring authority's proposal and made only cosmetic changes, showing non-application of mind and failure to formulate the grounds independently.

Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed that the grounds of detention were substantially a verbatim reproduction of the sponsoring authority's proposal, with only the detenu's description changed and minor cosmetic edits made. The detaining authority's denial was found to be vague, and the comparison of the proposal with the grounds made it clear that the detention grounds had not been independently formulated. In preventive detention matters, the detaining authority must itself apply mind to the material and prepare the grounds on which subjective satisfaction is based; a mechanical adoption of the proposal is impermissible and defeats the safeguards under the Constitution.

Conclusion: The detention order was vitiated for non-application of mind and could not be sustained; the petition succeeded and the detenu was directed to be released.

Final Conclusion: The order of preventive detention was set aside because the grounds were not independently formed by the detaining authority, and the challenge succeeded on that substantive constitutional infirmity.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention, the detaining authority must independently formulate the grounds and apply its mind to the material; a verbatim or near-verbatim adoption of the sponsoring authority's proposal with only cosmetic changes invalidates the detention order for non-application of mind.

---